Partly allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2023CRLA/555/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, the High Court reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant, maintaining the fine, as the appellant had suffered prolonged detention.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained with three months time to deposit; bail bonds discharged.

Ashok Kumar Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43369]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 555/2013

¶4

Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Maga Ram, B/c Kumahar, R/o Bankli Village, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. JVS Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Judgment

¶12

12/12/2023

¶13

Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.06.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.51/2010 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶14

Offence U/s 363 IPC : Three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo three months’ Addl. S.I.

¶15

Offence U/s 366 IPC : Three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo three months’ Addl. S.I.

¶16

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.2010, complainant Ratan Lal (PW-2) submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur against the present appellant and other persons, which was sent for investigation to the concerned Police Station. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 15/01/2010, complainant’s minor daughter went missing from the house and

[2023:RJ-JD:43369]

[CRLA-555/2013]

(2 of 3)

along with her, she took Rs.5,000/- and some jewellary. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that in connivance with other persons, accused-appellant enticed his daughter to marry him. On this report, Police registered a case against the accusedappellant for offences under Sections 363, 366, 120B, 406 IPC and started investigation.

¶22

On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the present appellant for aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC were framed by the trial court against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶23

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

¶24

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.06.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.

¶25

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2010 and the accused appellant has so far suffered a sentence of about three months, out of total sentence of three years’ R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

[2023:RJ-JD:43369]

[CRLA-555/2013]

(3 of 3)

The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

¶31

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant.

¶32

Undisputedly, the occurrence relates back to year 2010 and, the appellant has so far undergone a period of three months incarceration, out of total sentence of three years’ R.I., and has also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for quite some time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant while maintaining the amount of fine.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant’s conviction and sentence for offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo three months’ S.I. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶34

Record be sent back forthwith.

¶35

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶36

247-MS/-

Ashok Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badaniya and Ors. Vs State

Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya Vs State

Vicky @ Inderjeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chitar and Ors. Vs State

Abdul Rasid @ Rasid Ahmed Vs State